More Menie Planning Permissions

I have now recovered from a depressing day on Tuesday when my colleagues decided to grant planning permission for Trump to extend the resort to include 5 new areas.

For clarity, as it is difficult for most people to understand what this is all about - and quite properly much of the focus is the threat via Compulsory Purchase to people's homes - I will try to explain why I moved rejection of the five permissions.

Overall there were two reasons for refusal

1. failure of applicant to show how the addition of the site would improve the masterplan for the resort.
This was purely an assertion by Trump. Architecture and Design Scotland said they could not comment as they had not seen any Masterplans and the council's planner oddly missed reporting the views of this vital consultee, charged with overseeing the masterplanning process. A masterplan was released by Trump on 28th August but this has not been agreed nor widely discussed.

2. failure to demonstrate any ADDITIONAL benefits to the wider public for the inclusion of the land

And individually for the sites:

A. Leyton Farm - loss of farmland: lack of environmental assessment

B. Hermit Point - lose of residential accommodation, lost of historic building, no demonstration that there was a conflict in continuing current use or issues with access.

C. Leyton Cottage - loss of residential accommodation and no demontration that there would be a conflcit in continiung current use or issues with access.

D. Menie Fishing Station/Mill of Menie - loss of residential accommodation and loss of farmland, lack fo environmental assessment.

E. Council owned land in the dunes last used as car park - loss of opportunity for public access.

I was pretty confident about the compatibility of use for Hermit Point and Leyton Cottage as the applicant oddly did not also apply to extend the resort into Coastguard Cottages which should logically have simil;ar issues. The Chair of the meetings stopped me from questioning the applicant's agent on why this was so but I have heard comments that it was no co-incidence that those targeted for the planning permissions and thence the CPOs are those who are unwilling to sell.

Low point of meeting : Cllr Isobel Davidson saying that she was supporting the grant so that the residents could "move on". Isobel - if you spoke to our constituents, you would understand they have no wish to move on and away.

Update: 3rd October. I have an apology to make here. Isobel - you spoke very clearly on 1st October saying that your were in principle against the use of CPOs at for the properties in question.  Thank you for that and I have removed further comment regarding this.  I am sorry I misinterpreted you.

High point : Cllr Rob Merson saying that landownership must be resolved on the basis of "willing buyer, willing seller". Well done to Rob for being the first SNP councillor to give an indication of their views on the CPO. Shame on the rest for not saying.

UPDATE (Friday and Saturday)
Rob Merson has taken exception to my comments regarding him. Please see Comments for his emails to me and my response. I have invited him to post comments here to set the record straight.

Paul Johnston has blogged on this topic.

24 comments:

  1. *From:* Cllr.R.Merson@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
    *To:* debra@debrastorr.org.uk
    *CC:* Gordon.Davidson@aberdeenshire.gov.uk, Keith.Newton@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
    *Date:* Thu, 3 Sep 2009 22:37:18 +0100


    Debra, That is absolutely not what I said either, and I am not prepared to write your blog for you. Let me make it quite clear - if you continue to misrepresent what I say I will take action. Kindly remove the reference from the blog forthwith - or face the consequences. Rob
    Cllr. Rob Merson
    Ellon & District Ward
    40 St. Mary's Drive
    ELLON
    AB41 9LW

    Tel. & Fax: 01358-729065
    Mobile: 07827-881909



    To: Cllr.R.Merson@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
    From: "Debra Storr" debra@debrastorr.org.uk
    Date: 03/09/2009 10:28PM
    cc: debra@debrastorr.org.uk
    Subject: Re: Debra Storr Blog

    Rob,

    I heard you saying "willing buyer, willing seller". I agree you didn't
    mention CPOs.

    How about

    High point : Cllr Rob Merson saying that landownership must be resolved
    on the basis of "willing buyer, willing seller". Well done to Rob for
    being the first SNP councillor to give an indication of their views on
    the CPO. Shame on the rest for not saying.

    Debra


    > *From:* Cllr.R.Merson@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
    > *To:* debra@debrastorr.org.uk, Cllr.D.Storr@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
    > *CC:* Keith.Newton@aberdeenshire.gov.uk,
    > Gordon.Davidson@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
    > *Date:* Thu, 3 Sep 2009 21:36:56 +0100
    >

    > Dear Debra, I have just been alerted to the fact that your
    > 'blogspot' includes a totally inaccurate representation of my
    > remarks at the Formartine Area Committee on Tuesday, viz:
    >
    > High point : Cllr Rob Merson indicating that he was against the
    > CPOs saying that the matter must be resolved on the basis of
    > "willing buyer, willing seller". Well done to Rob for being the
    > first SNP councillor to give such an indication. Shame on the rest
    > for not saying.
    >
    > I said no such remark regarding CPOs, and I take profound
    > objection to your saying that I did - kindly remove it forthwith or
    > I will lodge a formal complaint.
    >
    > Rob Cllr. Rob Merson
    > Ellon & District Ward
    > 40 St. Mary's Drive
    > ELLON
    > AB41 9LW
    >
    > Tel. & Fax: 01358-729065
    > Mobile: 07827-881909
    >

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rob Merson seems now to be saying that he wasn't talking about willing buyers and sellers on Tuesday.

    That's a pity as I was giving him credit for saying he wanted to support the residents affected who are his constituents as much as they are mine. If I have got that wrong, I'm sorry.

    I've posted our exchange above so everyone can make up their own minds.

    I'll happily publish a comment to this post from Rob Merson under the usual conditions if he wants to make his position clear.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I asked Rob about his principle on the use of CPO's being issued to evict local citizens from their home in favour of a commercial enterprise.

    He was clearly reluctant to express his principle view and merely asked if I was a constituent, and if so to supply a full postal address.

    In reply to confirming that I was indeed the person signing the email i.e. Steen parrish, I get a reply calling me presumptious and puerile, which is why he does not respond to emails for people who do not have the common courtesy to say who they are.

    His experience is that ill-informed and offensive comments such as mine, are in danger of causing more damage than good for those that I am allegedly "defending" - and they frankly deserve better.

    fair comment, except I am not "defending anyone and my comments were irrelevant to the simple question I put to Rob.

    I doubt that Rob has had the courage or maturity to have said anything of substance about potential CPO's being issued by the Council. No, Rob will wait and see. IT seems he feels there is no principle at stake here. It's simply a planning matter that Rob willd ecide on when he has the facts.

    Steen Parish
    (Telephone number supplied and removed in moderation)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh dear! The last thing you need just now is misunderstanding on this issue. I would have thought that what you said, Debra, was quite clear enough to anyone who was listening properly to what you were saying.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rob Merson is still upset and has now complained to Aberdeenshire's Chief Executive (Colin Mackenzie). Quite what he is complaining about is not clear to me. And the matter under debate is his position on Compulsory Purchase Orders - nothing to do with planning permissions.

    Rob hasn't denied using the words I quote "willing buyer, willing seller". Neither has he clarified to anyone (see comment from Steen Parish above), whether he is supports using CPO powers against his (our) constituents or not.

    I am amused by the "sub-judice". Even if there were a case to answer, Aberdeenshire's internal disciplinary procedures are hardly the Sherriff Court.

    The next comment includes in full the latest exchanges with Rob - his latest appears first.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rob's latest email to me ... it's rather long so the previous exchange has had to be put in yet another comment.

    * From: * Robert Merson
    * Sent: * 05/09/2009 16:19 GDT
    * To: * Debra Storr
    * Cc: * Colin Mackenzie; Gordon Davidson; Keith Newton
    * Subject: * Re: Debra Storr Blog

    Cllr. Storr, I have already made it perfectly clear to you that you grossly misrepresented my remarks in your 'blogspot', and that your interpretation of what I said is entirely inaccurate. I gave you several opportunities to remove the reference from your website, without so much as a request for a retraction or an apology. I am not an unreasonable man, and had you done so at that juncture, I would have been prepared to let the matter rest as a simple misunderstanding. However, I will remind you that it is not the first time that I have been the subject of your ill-considered remarks, and I attach a copy of my letter to you of 10th January 2008 as an illustration of the latitude which I extended to you on a previous occasion. I will also draw your attention to the caveat in the final paragraph. There is no obligation on my part to contribute to your website; and I take profound objection to your attempts to compel me to do so. We are not talking here of a bit of spirited political knock-about - we are dealing with a major planning application of national importance, and the personal lives of a number of our mutual constituents. I have sought to maintain a rational and professional approach throughout the whole Trump planning application process. That requirement has perhaps been even more crucial in respect of the five applications submitted last week, and to the impending question of CPOs. I therefore most certainly will not tolerate your gauche attempts to draw me into premature debate on the basis of your misrepresentation of my comments on a website in which you have sole editorial control - and your attempt to embroil me in your self-obsessed media circus was a grave error of judgement on your part. I can inform you that I have already submitted a request for an early meeting with the Chief Executive, at which point I intend to present my complaint against you in full, and to lodge a formal request that disciplinary action be taken against you. I therefore now consider the matter to be sub judice, and I am not prepared to engage in further communication with you on this issue. I trust that makes my position perfectly clear. Cllr. Rob Merson
    Ellon & District Ward
    40 St. Mary's Drive
    ELLON
    AB41 9LW

    Tel. & Fax: 01358-729065
    Mobile: 07827-881909

    ReplyDelete
  7. ... and finally emails between Rob and I where I invite him to give his version. I am sorry I seem to have misunderstood his "willing buyer, willing seller" ... but why mention such (as land ownership is not a planning matter) unless he was trying to tell his constituents that while he was happy to grant planning permissions for their property, he drew the line at CPOs?


    To: Cllr.R.Merson@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
    From: "Debra Storr" debra@debrastorr.org.uk
    Date: 05/09/2009 10:50AM
    cc: debra@debrastorr.org.uk
    Subject: Re: Debra Storr Blog

    Rob,

    I have given you the opportunity to set the record straight and am still
    happy to so do. But I am not the only person to have heard the words I
    quoted and I do not think my interpretation was unreasonable.

    A plain statement of your views on the whether or not you support the use
    of CPOs in regard to your (our) constutuent's properties would suffice.

    Regards

    Debra


    Cllr.R.Merson wrote:

    > *From:* Cllr.R.Merson@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
    > *To:* debra@debrastorr.org.uk
    > *CC:* Gordon.Davidson@aberdeenshire.gov.uk,
    > Keith.Newton@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
    > *Date:* Thu, 3 Sep 2009 23:24:21 +0100

    > Debra, I did not use those words in the context in which you
    > presented them. I now have you on record admitting that I did not
    > mention CPOs. It is now after 11pm, and my patience has expired,
    > so I will tell you for the last time - if you do not remove the
    > inaccurate account of my remarks from your blogspot forthwith, I
    > will be lodging a formal complaint, and will discuss the matter
    > with my solicitor. I have given you the last opportunity to save
    > face, the choice is now yours. Rob Cllr. Rob Merson
    > Ellon & District Ward
    > 40 St. Mary's Drive
    > ELLON
    > AB41 9LW
    >
    > Tel. & Fax: 01358-729065
    > Mobile: 07827-881909
    >


    > -----"Debra Storr" wrote: -----

    > To: Cllr.R.Merson@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
    > From: "Debra Storr" debra@debrastorr.org.uk
    > Date: 03/09/2009 11:17PM
    > cc: Gordon.Davidson@aberdeenshire.gov.uk,
    > Keith.Newton@aberdeenshire.gov.uk, debra@debrastorr.org.uk
    > Subject: Re: Debra Storr Blog
    >
    > Rob,
    >
    > There are only four words in quotation marks. I heard you say
    > them. If
    > you are now denying those four words, that's fine. Just let me
    > know and
    > I will set the record straight.
    >
    > Debra

    ReplyDelete
  8. Debra - surely we will be able to see what Cllr R. Merson said on the minutes of the meeting when they are published. I am also looking forward to reading about any declarations of interest made! Sue Edwards

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not necessarily, Sue.
    Officers don't take full verbatim notes - just enough for the minutes (and I'd be reluctant to embroil them in this spat - it's not fair to them)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I see Cllr Merson says "- we are dealing with a major planning application of national importance"

    If so then Cllr Merson knows it would not have been decided at the Formartine Area Committee but at full Council. As he said nothing about this, I assume he thinks that his constituents interests in this case are NOT of national importance and his comments to Councillor Storr on here are disingenuous.

    Of Course Debra was not making comment about the planning application but Rob's phrase which alludes to the CPO.

    I am amazed as well at Rob Merson using 'sub judice' as an argument why he is not going to say anything more. Many people reading this may think that the use of a phrase to give a legal grandness as being before the 'judge or courts', as pompous. I am sure Rob does not mean this. He might like to say.

    Another phrase that people may think is:

    'Methinks he protest-eth too much'

    ReplyDelete
  11. Having attended the meeting in question, from early on through to the conclusion of the pantomime that it turned into I have to have to add that I also heard the phrase "willing seller and willing buyer" being used by Councillor Merson. In the context it was used it was obvious to me that he meant he was not in support of CPOs which came as some comfort to me.

    I also feel it necessary to point out that Councillor Davidsons comments I felt were personally insulting and showed that had either not read or had failed to understand the content of the representation that had been submitted by myself and my wife.

    If either of teh two councillors mentioned above wish to contact me directly to clarify any misunderstanding they may have of my position they are free to do so, all the councillors have my contact details and just for clarity at this point. I have no intention of physically moving on from this place and Councillor Mersons comments will be taken as comments of support, against the unethical and immoral practice of compulsory purchase, by myself based on what I heard last Tuesday.

    David Milne

    ReplyDelete
  12. What kind of person would want to play golf on a course that has caused so much trouble, split communities and now aims to thow people out of their homes!? I'm sick of hearing about the economic case - it's absolute rubbish! What kind of message does this give to young people about how we should value our land and people? Shame on any Cllr that supports this development and CPO.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you're going to lecture us all, then please show an example by taking the time to spell your utterances correctly.

    Pat Garmin

    ReplyDelete
  14. In terms of membership of committees, do you believe in the doctrine of corporate responsibility, i.e. if you are part of a democratically-elected committee, and that committee agrees a particular course of action, do you agree that all members of that committee should be bound by the majority view?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pat,
    This is planning where all councillors are charged with acting in accordance to policy, mediated by material considerations. But we often take different views on the weight to attach to different aspects.

    In current circumstances the grant of outline planning permission is a fact and I am obliged in assessing the detailed planning applications to ensure that these fulfil the conditions laid down and other relevant polices. I can not block these on the grounds of the principle of development as that was taken out of the hands of anyone on Aberdeenshire Council.

    Of course, Aberdeenshire Council on 30th November 2007 had two votes:
    5 - reject outright
    9 - defer for further discussions to remove the SSSI.
    and then there was the better know 7-7 vote
    7 - defer as above
    7 - outright rejection.

    But the Council, having delegated authority to this group to make the decision, then behaved in ways most strange .... So much for corporate responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I was thinking more back to the early days when the Formartine area committee took a majority view that supported the application. As a member of that committee, was it not then encumbent on you to agree with the will of the majority and support the committee's decision? If you felt unable to abide by the democratic process should you not have resigned at that point?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pat, if councillors resigned every time a planning decision went against them at the Area Committees, we'd have by-elections all the time.
    I was also part of the Infrastructure Services Committee but in no way was I bound by the local decision. It would have been very odd to change my view over the period of a week.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Funny sort of democracy that requires people who disagree with a certain policy to resign from office.
    After all I represented say Turriff where I live[in Formatine Area] a landfill at Wester Hatton is hardly likely to impact on the residents here as a result for me as an area representative the decision would come down to one of a consideration of the merits or demerits of the plans. However if it impinged on my constituents, those I REPRESENT then Surely I would have a duty to express those views and to fight the plans all the way through the due process.

    That would be democracy, however so often we the public see members representing their own narrow interests or the view of whichever 'lobby' group (usually of the 'great and the good') is most persuasive, sometimes at the expense of those that elected them.

    Social justice demands a dissenting voice!

    It is not enough to simply say Ok I tried now we have to accept the decision.

    Which is exactly what PG is describing

    i.e. if you are part of a democratically-elected committee, and that committee agrees a particular course of action, do you agree that all members of that committee should be bound by the majority view?

    (his words not mine).

    I do not agree that all members should be bound by a corporate view ie fall into line... you can accept a decision but not agree with it.

    Corporate responsibility works fine until necks are on the line and then it all falls apart under an everyman for himself self preservationist line.

    For me the flaw in the corporate responsibility line advocated by PG comes when a 7:7 split in the committee occurs and the chair has the casting vote. There is an unwritten rule which stretches to the House of Commons that in a tied vote the chairmen irrespective of His political affiliation votes for the Status Quo (eg In a tied vote of No Confidence the Speaker of the Commons ALWAYS votes with the Government, as th Parliament motion of No confidence has not passed by the majority of MP's.
    Yet the chair of your committee was hounded out for doing exactly that.

    So Id Like to ask PG to justify just where his view of Corporate Responsibility was in that decision, after all the Chair followed protocol and voted for the status quo yet he was the only one to take the bullet and the flak.

    Corporate Responsibility is not noble. it isn't just..It is merely a self serving insurance policy made up by those in positions of power to provide a mechanism to deflect anger and spread the blame in the event things go wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Why on earth do you not feel you ought to be bound by the local decision? If you're a democratically elected representative, acting on behalf of the local population, forming part of a committee that, whether you like it or not, comes to a majority decision, you ought to be bound by - and voice support for - that decision. That is how committees work. To say that you then felt that, merely because you had a second bite at the cherry by also being a member of the Infrastucture Services Committee, you could continue your line of argument that had been defeated in the Formartine Committee, knowing the that you were voicing opinions that had been voted against by the majority at that level, is a high-handed abuse of the trust that was placed in you by voters at election. You ought to have respected the decision of the local committee or, if you felt unable to abide by the democratic process, you should have resigned. Instead, you chose to ignore that decision and have acted in an undemocratic way. You are mistaken, by any reasonable definition of corporate responsibility, in saying what happened at the Formartine committee should have no bearing on your behaviour at the Infrastructure Services Committee. Otherwise, what is the point in Councillors purporting to representlocal views?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Pat
    How can I change my view on planning grounds just because others disagree?

    I would quite rightly be castigated for inconsistency.
    End of discussion, please - this was more relevant in 2007 than 2009.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In reply to the second argument in favour of Corporate Responsibility

    For me I have to return to the needling question

    Why was the chair of the ISC voted out for maintaining the status quo...this is the unwritten position of the chair in a tied vote.

    What I fail to understand is this if PG your assertion stands then under the umbrella of Corporate Responsibility Why didn't the 15 members of the ISC comittee ALL vote for him (only 10 members of the whole council did) that really scuppers any notion of Corporate Responsibility

    For under your rules of Corporate Responsibility the ISC should have accepted that the Majority View of the ISC was to veto the Trump Plans (8 - 7) and under that scheme they should have abided by that decision to a body...THEY DIDN'T... In that in the vote of censure the Cllr Ford only got 10 votes For (26 Against) Funny the comittee comprised of 15

    That is a large hole below the waterline for your view of Corporate Responsibility.

    Secondly you cannot have Corporate Responsibility in a party system because bloc voting and party politics skew it. Just because the Conservative Party loses a vote in a Select Committee doesn't mean they are bound to endorse it in the Commons or House of Lords (that includes those individuals on those Comittees) they accept the will of the Committee in scrutinising what they may see as the best of an ill written bill but still seek to change ammend or alter at later stages we are not talking about a single party ruling the Formartine planning matters. and I for one do not expect issues affecting me to be dropped because of one vote because that isn't democracy at least not for the electorate

    If that was the case the edict goes... That as the planning was passed in the Formartine Committee all those on it can't vote against CPO's as it may hold up that planning permission... neither then can the Whole 26 council members who voted to censure Cllr Ford for voting against the Trump plan. They would be doing the same as Cllr Ford whom they censured

    As I said

    Corporate Responsibility is not noble. it isn't just..It is merely a self serving insurance policy made up by those in positions of power to provide a mechanism to deflect anger and spread the blame in the event things go wrong

    Which when push comes to shove don't mean jack when those in power are looking for a scapegoat as proved by Aberdeenshire Council

    ReplyDelete
  22. Pat, Spirit of Iona - Enough.

    I won't publish more on the history. I'd close all comments to this post but I have said I'll give Cllrs Merson and Davidson a right to reply. They don't seem inclined to take me up on this but just in case ...

    So I will now reject all comments unless they are from the two councillors mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  23. do you really think this is an appropriate way for a Councillor to act? is what Rob said really the issue? i think you should serve your constituents, not your grieviences with each other. Its pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Communist councillors all.

    ReplyDelete

I am happy to address most contributions if they are coherent. Comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will be posted.

Please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person.

The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.